Scholars' Mine Scholars' Mine

Masters Theses Student Theses and Dissertations

Spring 2014

The description of an effective sinkhole investigation approach: a The description of an effective sinkhole investigation approach: a

case study of two sites in Greene County, Missouri case study of two sites in Greene County, Missouri

Stanley Chinedu Nwokebuihe

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/masters_theses

Part of the Geological Engineering Commons

Department: Department:

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Nwokebuihe, Stanley Chinedu, "The description of an effective sinkhole investigation approach: a case study of two sites in Greene County, Missouri" (2014). Masters Theses. 7267. https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/masters_theses/7267

This thesis is brought to you by Scholars' Mine, a service of the Missouri S&T Library and Learning Resources. This work is protected by U. S. Copyright Law. Unauthorized use including reproduction for redistribution requires the permission of the copyright holder. For more information, please contact scholarsmine@mst.edu.

THE DESCRIPTION OF AN EFFECTIVE SINKHOLE INVESTIGATION

APPROACH: A CASE STUDY OF TWO SITES IN GREENE COUNTY,

MISSOURI

by

STANLEY CHINEDU NWOKEBUIHE

A THESIS

Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the

MISSOURI UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

MASTERS OF SCIENCE in GEOLOGICAL ENGINEERING

2014

Approved by

Neil L. Anderson, Advisor

Norbert Maerz

Leslie Gertsch

2014

Stanley Nwokebuihe

All Rights Reserved

iii

ABSTRACT

Karst topographies pose danger to the environment. The associated gradual

subsidence or sudden collapse of the ground can lead to loss of lives and damage to

property. A sinkhole is the subsidence or collapse of the overburden into subsurface

cavities. Sinkholes develop in different sizes, shapes and rates all over the world

especially in areas where the bedrock can be dissolved by percolating slightly acidic

surface water.

Different methods have been used to investigate sinkholes. Boring is the most

common of these methods. But the boring technique is quite inefficient; it only provides

information of the subsurface conditions at the boring location thereby requiring multiple

borings to more accurately characterize a sinkhole. Geophysical methods have also been

used to investigate sinkholes including Gravity, Electromagnetic, Multichannel Analysis

of Surface Waves (MASW), Electrical Resistivity Tomography and Ground Penetrating

Radar (GPR). But these methods work best in appropriate geological environments in

mapping sinkholes.

This project describes a framework for an efficient investigation of sinkholes. The

study uses the combination of Aerial photographs, Topographic maps, geological maps

and cross sections which are categorized as preliminary studies; appropriate geophysical

methods (MASW and ERT) and a few borings to effectively characterize sinkholes. This

approach was successfully applied in two case study sites located in Greene County,

Missouri and is recommended for future sinkhole investigations where applicable.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to thank God for his gifts of strength, good health, wisdom and

understanding during the period of this project.

My unalloyed gratitude goes to my adviser, Dr. Neil Anderson, for his financial

support, encouragement and the opportunity given to me to carry out this project. My

words of gratitude also go the MoDOT (Missouri Department of Transportation) crew for

coordinating and supporting the field operations. I also want to thank the committee

members, Dr. Norbert Maerz and Dr. Leslie Gertsch for accepting to be part of this

project. I appreciate your individual contributions and corrections.

I wish to thank Paula Cochran, the Secretary of the Department of Geological

Sciences and Engineering for all her help, the other staff and faculty of Geological

Engineering for their role in my completion of my Master’s program and to my

colleagues Dr. Torgashov, Mengxing, Sasha, Aleksey, Abdulrahman, Faraj, Adel,

Ghassan, Payman, Jeremiah, Abdallah and Brandon for their support in making this

project a reality. I also want to thank Mr. Chris Jocius of the Missouri S&T library for his

concern and overwhelming support to me.

Finally, I wish to thank my family, friends and relatives for their prayers and

support during this period. I am most grateful to you all.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... iv

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ............................................................................................. ix

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. xi

SECTION

1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1

1.1. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 1

1.2. RESEARCH FOCUS ....................................................................................... 4

1.3. OVERALL RESEARCH AIM AND OBJECTIVES ...................................... 4

1.4. VALUE OF THE RESEARCH ....................................................................... 4

1.5. OUTLINE ........................................................................................................ 4

2. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................... 6

2.1. GENERAL OVERVIEW................................................................................. 6

2.2. TYPES OF SINKHOLE .................................................................................. 7

2.2.1. Solution Sinkhole .............................................................................. 7

2.2.2. Subsidence Sinkholes........................................................................ 7

2.2.3. Collapse Sinkholes ............................................................................ 8

2.3. FACTORS THAT TRIGGER THE DEVELOPMENT OF SINKHOLES ..... 9

2.4. SINKHOLE DANGERS ................................................................................ 11

2.5. SINKHOLE REMEDIATION ....................................................................... 12

vi

2.6. SINKHOLE INVESTIGATION ................................................................... 12

2.6.1. Preliminary Site Studies .................................................................. 13

2.6.2. Geophysical Surveys ....................................................................... 14

2.6.3. Borings ............................................................................................ 16

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................................................. 18

3.1. PRELIMINARY STUDIES ........................................................................... 18

3.2. GEOPHYSICAL METHODS ....................................................................... 20

3.2.1. The Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) ............................... 20

3.2.1.1. 2D ERT data acquisition .................................................. 20

3.2.1.2. ERT data processing ........................................................ 22

3.2.1.3. ERT data interpretation .................................................... 23

3.2.1.4. Strengths and weaknesses of the ERT method ................ 24

3.2.2. The Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW) Method .. 25

3.2.2.1. MASW data acquisition and processing .......................... 25

3.2.2.2. MASW data interpretation ............................................... 28

3.2.2.3. Strengths and weaknesses of the MASW method ........... 29

3.3. BORINGS ...................................................................................................... 29

3.4. STUDY AREA .............................................................................................. 30

4. CASE STUDY SITE 1 ............................................................................................. 34

4.1. OVERVIEW OF CASE STUDY SITE 1 ...................................................... 34

4.2. PRELIMINARY SITE INVESTIGATIONS ................................................. 35

4.2.1. Topographic Map for Site 1 ............................................................ 35

4.2.2. Aerial Photographs.......................................................................... 36

vii

4.2.3. Karst Susceptibility/Sinkholes/Faults Map for Site 1 ..................... 37

4.2.4. Geologic Cross-Sections for Site 1 ................................................. 39

4.3. GEOPHYSICAL STUDIES AT SITE 1........................................................ 41

4.3.1 The Electrical Resistivity Tomography Survey ............................... 42

4.3.2. The Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves Survey ................... 44

4.4. BORINGS ...................................................................................................... 51

4.5. RESULT SUMMARY FOR SITE 1.............................................................. 52

5. CASE STUDY SITE 2 ............................................................................................. 55

5.1. OVERVIEW OF CASE STUDY SITE 2 ...................................................... 55

5.2. PRELIMINARY SITE INVESTIGATIONS ................................................. 56

5.2.1. Topographic Map for Site 2 ............................................................ 56

5.2.2. Aerial Photographs.......................................................................... 57

5.2.3. Karst Susceptibility/Sinkholes/Faults Map for Site 2 ..................... 58

5.2.4. Geologic Cross-Sections for Site 2 ................................................. 58

5.3. GEOPHYSICAL STUDIES AT SITE 2........................................................ 61

5.3.1 The Electrical Resistivity Tomography Survey ............................... 62

5.3.2 The Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves Survey for Site 2 .... 65

5.4. BORINGS ...................................................................................................... 65

5.5 RESULT SUMMARY FOR SITE 2............................................................... 67

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................... 69

6.1. GENERAL CONCLUSION ON THE STUDIES ......................................... 69

viii

6.2. RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 70

BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................ 72

VITA ................................................................................................................... 75

ix

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure Page

1.1. A 75-foot deep Sinkhole in Nixa, Missouri ................................................................. 2

1.2. Sinkholes in Missouri (Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2007). ............... 3

2.1. The development of solution sinkhole. ........................................................................ 8

2.2. The development of subsidence sinkhole. ................................................................... 9

2.3. The development of collapse sinkhole. ........................................................................ 9

2.4. Some examples of the damaging effect of sinkholes. ................................................ 12

3.1. The setup of an ERT system ...................................................................................... 22

3.2. A typical 2D ERT cross-section ................................................................................ 23

3.3. The acquisition and processing of MASW data ........................................................ 26

3.4. The combination of multiple 1-D MASW profiles to generate a

2D shear wave velocity profile. ................................................................................. 27

3.5. A geologic column of Green County. ........................................................................ 31

3.6. The fault systems and lineaments in Greene County, Missouri. ................................ 32

3.7. The locations of the two case study sites in Greene County, Missouri. ............. 33

4.1. A map view of Site 1 in Nixa, Missouri, with the area of interest

magnified at lower right ............................................................................................. 35

4.2. The topographic map of Site 1 ................................................................................... 36

4.3. A collection of aerial photographs for Site 1 ............................................................. 38

4.4. Karst susceptible areas, sinkhole features and faults for Site 1 ................................. 39

4.5. The relative locations of the four wells used for generating Site 1 geologic

cross-section. .............................................................................................................. 40

4.6. The geologic cross-section of Site 1 .......................................................................... 40

x

4.7. Some Site 1 photographs ........................................................................................... 41

4.8. Geophysical and Boring data acquisition .................................................................. 42

4.9. The approximate locations of the ERT and MASW traverses on Site 1 ................... 43

4.10. The interpretation of the results of ERT 1 ............................................................... 45

4.11. The interpretation of the results of ERT 3 ............................................................... 46

4.12. The interpretation of the results of ERT 2 ............................................................... 47

4.13. The 1-D shear wave velocity profiles of the first 6 MASW profiles ....................... 49

4.14. The interpretation of the 2-D shear wave velocity profile generated for Site 1 ...... 50

4.15. The interpretation of geological features at Site 1 showing the relative

positions of the fault and joints from which the sinkhole formed ........................... 53

5.1. A map view of Site 2 in Springfield, Missouri, with the area of interest

magnified at lower right ............................................................................................. 56

5.2. Some surface depressions on the topographic map of Site 2 ..................................... 57

5.3. The aerial photographs of Site 2 from 1938 to 2013 ................................................. 59

5.4. Karst susceptible areas, sinkhole features and faults for Site 2 ................................. 60

5.5. The approximate locations of the two wells used to generate Site 2 cross-sections .. 60

5.6. The geologic cross-section of Site 2 .......................................................................... 61

5.7. Some site photographs of Site 2................................................................................. 61

5.8. The approximate location of the ERT and MASW traverses in Site 2 ...................... 62

5.9. The interpretation of the results of ERT 1 and 2 ....................................................... 63

5.10. The interpretation of the results of ERT 3 and 4 ..................................................... 64

xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

3.1. Typical resistivity values for different subsurface materials ..................................... 24

3.2. NEHRP site classification chart for different geological materials ........................... 28

4.1. The boring log for Site 1 ............................................................................................ 51

5.1. The boring log data from Site 2 ................................................................................. 66

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

A sinkhole is a depression on the ground surface due to the dissolution or collapse

of surface sediments into bedrock cavities. Sinkholes are very common in karst terrain (a

geological environment whose bedrock can be dissolved by slightly acidic ground water

such as limestone, dolostone and gypsum). Sinkholes occur in various sizes, shapes

(bowel-shaped or vertical wall) and depths. The development of sinkhole can be very

gradual with continuous and gradual depression of the surface and can as well develop as

a catastrophic event.

Most sinkholes are formed from a process in which carbon dioxide in the

atmosphere reacts with rain water to form slightly acidic surface water. When the surface

water percolates into soluble bedrock, the bedrock is gradually dissolved. This process

leads to the formation of voids in the bedrock especially along joints. The joints widen

over time to form cavities in the subsurface. Subsequently, the overburden subsides or

collapses into the cavities forming depressions at the surface recognized as sinkholes.

Records of the destructive effects of sinkholes abound. Sinkhole activities have

led to the collapse of structures built above them and in some cases led to the loss of lives

and damage to properties. Figure 1.1 shows the sinkhole that developed in Nixa,

Missouri within 24 hours in 2006. The sinkhole was about 75 feet deep and developed

adjacent to the garage of a residential building. A car parked in the garage was buried in

the sinkhole. Actually, no loss of life was recorded in the incident but property was

severely damaged.

2

Sinkholes also provide channels for the direct flow of surface water to

underground aquifer without passing through the natural filtration process hence serving

as channels for ground water contamination.

Figure 1.1. A 75-foot deep Sinkhole in Nixa, Missouri.

According to the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (2007), about 60% of

the bedrock in Missouri is carbonate compared to the global average of 20%. Also, the

DNR has mapped and verified 15,981 sinkholes across the state till date with different

depths up to over 100 feet. The DNR map shown in Figure 1.2 suggests that the sinkholes

in Missouri are predominantly found in the southern part of the state. The Watershed

Committee of the Ozarks reports of the results of a study carried by the Southwestern

3

Missouri State University which indicates that at least 2500 sinkholes have been mapped

in Greene County, MO alone; the location of the case study sites used in this research.

Figure 1.2. Sinkholes in Missouri (Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2007).

Early detection of sinkholes is necessary so that the feature can be stabilized

before a significant damage occurs. Different methods have been employed in the

investigation of sinkholes. Zisman (2008), Panno et al. (2008) and many other authors

acknowledge the relevance of aerial photographs, maps, borings, and geophysical studies

in the characterization of sinkholes. Unfortunately, it is inefficient to use only one of

these methods to successfully investigate sinkholes. Hence, there is need to use an

appropriate combination of tools to effectively investigate sinkholes.

4

1.2. RESEARCH FOCUS

The focus of this research is to describe an approach for effectively investigating

and characterizing sinkholes.

1.3. OVERALL RESEARCH AIM AND OBJECTIVES

The overall aim of this research is to describe the use of preliminary investigation

comprising of aerial photographs, topographic maps, geologic maps and cross sections,

geophysical tools; geophysical studies using the Electrical Resistivity Tomography

(ERT) and Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW) methods as well as the

drilling of few borings to effectively investigate sinkholes. The approach was applied in

two case study sites used in this research and the results are also presented.

1.4. VALUE OF THE RESEARCH

The research highlights the benefits of deploying a combination of appropriate

methods for a given geological environment for an effective sinkhole study. It is expected

that this approach should be adopted where applicable for sinkhole studies so as to limit

the number of lives lost and the amount of property damaged annually from sinkhole

related events.

1.5. OUTLINE

In Section 1, a general overview of the project is provided. The term, sinkhole is

defined. Issues related to sinkhole formation and the dangers associated with its

formation are discussed. Insights are given on the general ground conditions that

5

necessitate sinkhole formation and the different ways in which sinkholes have been

investigated as well as their limitations. Finally, the main aim of the project is presented.

In Section 2, a review of relevant publications related to the description of

sinkhole and how different methods have been applied over the years to investigate

sinkholes are presented. Also, explanations are given on the criteria for choosing the

methods used in this research.

In Section 3, discussions are made on the theory behind the different methods

used in the study and how the methods are applied in a typical sinkhole investigation site.

Where applicable the major limitations and applicability of each technique in sinkhole

investigation processes are highlighted.

In Section 4, the methods discussed in section three are applied in the

investigation of the sinkhole in Site 1. The results of the studies are presented and general

comments on the finding from the site are made.

In Section 5, Site 2 is investigated. The methods adopted in this research were

also applied in the site towards the characterization of the sinkhole at the site. The results

were subsequently presented and the general comments on the outcome of the study are

made.

In Section 6, conclusions are made on the utility of each of the tools used in the

studies and the interdependence of the tools in making good engineering judgments on

the factors that led to the development of the sinkholes at the sites. This is followed by

general recommendations on the outcomes of the study.

6

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. GENERAL OVERVIEW

The definition of sinkhole has been a conflicting subject. For instance Beck and

Sinclair (1987) cited Section 627.706 of the Florida Statutes which defines sinkhole as a

landform created by the sudden subsidence of soil, sediment or rock as underlying strata

are dissolved by ground water. This definition only recognizes sinkhole as a natural

phenomenon caused by the dissolution of bedrock in karst terrain. On the other hand

some authors are of the view that sinkholes can develop from both karst and non karst

processes. The definition of sinkhole used in this research is that given by Beck and

Sinclair (1987), and Kochanov (1999) which defines sinkholes as depressions on the land

surface caused by the dissolution of near surface bedrock and the subsidence or collapse

of the overburden into the underlying cavities.

According to the United States Geological Survey (2004), 20% of the United

States is highly susceptible to sinkhole development with Missouri named as one of the 7

states that experience the greatest damage from this geological activity. The other states

include Florida, Texas, Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Pennsylvania. Most

sinkholes in Missouri have been associated with rapid dissolution of bedrock at the

intersection of joints, Robinson and Anderson (2008) and Gouzie and Pendergrass

(2009). Ground water preferentially flows through these joints and over time, they form

caves and sometimes cavities that subside or collapse to form sinkholes. The reported

number of sinkholes already mapped in the state highlights the need for a good

understanding of how the sinkholes form, formulation of appropriate geotechnical

7

investigation program and the subsequent design of remedial program when and where

applicable towards preventing the associated loss of lives and damage to property

associated with sinkhole developments.

2.2. TYPES OF SINKHOLES

Rupert and Spencer (2004) explains that there are generally three main types of

sinkholes namely; collapse sinkholes, subsidence sinkholes and solution sinkholes. Some

authors are also of the view that sinkholes can develop from processes not related to karst

such as soil piping, Zisman (2008). Becks and Sinclair (1987) also allude that long

periods of drought, excessive rainfall and varying water table among other factors favor

the triggering of collapse sinkholes.

The three main types of sinkholes suggested by Rupert and Spencer, (2004) are

described below.

2.2.1. Solution Sinkhole. Solution sinkholes form where soluble bedrock has thin

or no overburden. The dissolution of the bedrock by percolating slightly acidic water is

mainly at the surface and along the joints in the bedrock. This process is usually gradual

and forms a bowl-shaped depression at the surface. This type of sinkhole is described in

Figure 2.1.

2.2.2. Subsidence Sinkholes. In subsidence sinkholes, the soluble bedrock is

covered by slightly thick overburden (typically between 50 and 100 feet). The subsidence

sinkholes also develop gradually. They tend to occur primarily in areas where the

bedrock overburden is mainly non-cohesive and permeable materials such that as the

8

percolating water dissolves the bedrock, the overburden is gradually eroded in to the

voids causing the depression seen at the surface. The process is described in Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.1. The development of solution sinkhole. Jennings (1985)

2.2.3. Collapse Sinkholes. Collapse sinkholes are the most dramatic of the three

sinkhole types. They develop mostly without signs of depression at the surface until they

collapse suddenly leaving behind a deep, steeply sided hole. They occur mostly in areas

with very thick overburden and the aquifer is in limestone formation. The seasonal

variation in water level accompanied by the inability of the formed cavity to support the

weight of the overburden leads to the collapse of the overburden into the cavities.

Collapse sinkholes are not quite common but their sudden development makes them the

most threatening of the three types of sinkholes. The development process is described in

Figure 2.3.

9

Figure 2.2. The development of subsidence sinkhole. Jennings (1985)

Figure 2.3. The development of collapse sinkhole. Jennings (1985)

2.3. FACTORS THAT TRIGGER THE DEVELOPMENT OF SINKHOLES

Most sinkhole developments are naturally occurring from karst processes.

However, sinkholes can also be triggered by human activities. The natural processes of

sinkhole development have been described so far as involving the flow of slightly acidic

ground water into the ground and through the natural fractures in the rock. The persistent

flow of water through the fractures makes the fractures dissolve and widen; voids are

formed and surficial sediments are eroded into the voids leading to surface depressions.

This natural process is slow and can take hundreds of years to form sinkholes.

10

Human activities on the other hand can facilitate the natural process of sinkhole

formation by increasing the rate of dissolution of bedrock or by reducing the capacity of

the underground cavity to support the overburden. The understanding of this condition is

important because since karst processes which cause most naturally occurring sinkholes

cannot be prevented, the anthropogenic activities that trigger sinkhole activities could be

minimized so as to prevent future sinkhole activities. Kochanov (1999) highlights some

of the human activities that can lead to the triggering of sinkholes as seen below:

- Storm water drainage: Urbanization and the construction of artificial drainage

systems concentrate surface water flow to areas where they rapidly dissolve the

bedrock. This is because during this process, soluble bedrock is exposed to greater

water influx and hence faster rate of dissolution.

- Rupture of utility lines: The rupture and leakage of the high pressure utility lines

allow for rapid dissolution of bedrock and erosion of the overburden into the

subsurface cavities forming sinkholes at the surface.

- Groundwater withdrawal: Over-withdrawal of ground water lowers the water

table and reduces the water pressure in the soluble bedrock. This condition

reduces the capacity of the cavities to support the overburden leading to sudden

collapse as seen in most collapse sinkholes.

Beck and Sinclair (1987) also suggested some other factors that are capable of

triggering sinkhole formation. These factors include:

- Extended drought period followed by heavy rainfall: Extended drought leads

to the lowering of the ground water table and as such increasing the tendency for

the overburden to collapse into the cavities. If this condition is accompanied by

11

heavy rainfalls, the overburden will be saturated and exert more weight on the

cavities and hence making sinkhole collapse even more likely.

- Surface loading above cavities such as artificial ponds and engineering

structures: Most engineering structures constitute a lot of weight on the ground.

If heavy structures are constructed above underground cavities without prior

testing, or if cavities form beneath already existing structures, they pose danger to

the stability of the structures because they tend to fail over time.

2.4. SINKHOLE DANGERS

Sinkholes are a source of concern to the public especially when they form in

highly populated areas. Figure 2.4 shows some images of sinkholes and how they can

negatively impact the environment. Some impacts of sinkholes on the environment

include:

- They can lead to loss of life especially when the collapse sinkhole develops quite

suddenly in a populated area. There are also instances in which people have lost

their lives by accidently running into newly formed sinkholes.

- They can lead to property damage, including the cracking and collapse of

buildings.

- Transportation can be obstructed when sinkholes develop along the road.

- Water pollution. Sinkholes create direct flow of surface water into the

underground aquifer without passing through the natural filtration process thereby

leading to the contamination of the aquifer.

12

Figure 2.4. Some examples of the damaging effect of sinkholes.

2.5. SINKHOLE REMEDIATION

There are no clear-cut methods for sinkhole remediation. Every sinkhole is unique

and requires peculiar treatment. However, the goals of every sinkhole remediation

program are to plug the voids (using grout, concrete, soil and other combinations) and to

remove any likely triggers such as ruptured utility lines and other types of poor drainage.

2.6. SINKHOLE INVESTIGATION

Sinkholes can often be recognized by their appearance as depression on the earth

surface. But sometimes a detailed study is required to characterize their development.

Several methods have been used over the years to investigate sinkholes. Panno et

al. (2008) and Zisman et al. (2013) presented different methods that can be combined for

successful sinkhole investigations. These include preliminary site studies using aerial

photographs, topographic maps, and other related maps; geophysical studies and borings.

13

This approach is accepted by most authors as potentially useful in sinkhole investigations

but there is still need to select appropriate combinations of the tools for a given site for an

efficient sinkhole investigation.

These methods of sinkhole investigation are discussed below highlighting their

individual strengths and limitations.

2.6.1. Preliminary Site Studies. The preliminary studies are classified as the

studies carried out on an area without necessarily visiting an affected site. These studies

includes observing aerial photographs, topographic maps, LiDAR (Light Detection and

Ranging) maps, geological cross-sections and other geological maps that can provide

useful information on the geological changes that has occurred in an area in the past.

Preliminary site studies offer a good basis for the planning of subsequent geotechnical

investigations. Another advantage of this method is that it is relatively inexpensive; the

information sort can be obtained from public domain at little to no costs.

Aerial photographs and topographic maps are good resources for finding

information on depressed areas over a vast period of time. On Google Earth, aerial

photographs of most parts of the United States can be progressively studied and

referenced from about 1996 until the present. Aerial photographs of a site older than 1996

often can be obtained from the state’s Department of Natural Resources. Even where the

resolution is low, it can be a fairly good tool to establish a longer baseline for the study of

changes that had occurred in an area in the past.

The down side to the use of these aerial photos is that features might be

misleading; for instance slumps can appear to be depressions and so on. LiDAR imaging

14

is a good resource for detecting surface depressions, but unfortunately, not all parts of the

United States has been covered by LiDAR survey yet.

Similarly, many agencies have large databases of geologic studies done in the

past. Some may be useful in sinkhole investigations. Florea (2005), by comparing

sinkhole maps generated for Kentucky with fault zones in the area showed that there is

direct relationship between mapped sinkhole features with fracture zones and

groundwater flow. The study suggested that extensive sinkhole studies can reveal fracture

zones that have not been mapped yet in the area.

2.6.2. Geophysical Surveys. Bullock and Dillman (2003), Lei et al. (2008) and

many other authors acknowledge the usefulness of geophysical tools in sinkhole

investigations. There have been challenges surrounding the use of the technology over

the past few decades. Most geophysical tools used were bulky, relatively expensive for

survey and had complicated data acquisition and processing procedures. But recent

advancements in the technology have made the tools less bulky, much cheaper and faster

to acquire data, fairly sophisticated processing software packages and highly user-

friendly. Bullock and Dillman concluded that amidst the few limitations of the

technology in recent years, the selection of the appropriate geophysical tools in

combination with boring is an effective way for delineating sinkholes.

Wightman et al. (2008) in a review of some geophysical tools that can be

effectively used to investigate sinkholes enumerated Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR),

Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT), Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves

(MASW), Electromagnetic, Seismic Reflection, Seismic Refraction and Gravity as useful

tools. However, the authors recommend the selection of appropriate geophysical tools for

15

a given site to enhance the quality and value of a sinkhole investigation program.

Similarly, Dobecki and Upchurch (2006) presented and recommended the use of the

Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR), 2D Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) and

Seismic method (Refraction Tomography and Surface waves) as great tools for sinkhole

study but should be used in compliment with boring data.

The Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) tool is very simple to operate provides high

vertical resolution images and the results that are fairly easy to interpret. Interpretation

can be made in real time as data is being acquired. But the GPR could not be used in this

project because of the high attenuation of the GPR signal in moist clay formations. The

Burlington-Keokuk formation found in Greene County, Missouri where the studies were

carried out weathers to reddish brown clay, which was observed in the sites visited. This

condition made the use of the GPR tool impracticable.

The Reflection Seismic method has high potential for delineating sinkholes but its

operation, processing and interpretation are quite complicated. As such, the method was

not used in this project.

The Gravity, Electromagnetic and Refraction Seismic methods are not quite

reliable in the investigation of sinkholes. More often than not the results are difficult to

interpret. Because of this reason, they were not used in this project.

The MASW and ERT methods are the two geophysical methods selected for this

project. They are well established tools for the investigation of sinkholes and hence used

for the studies.

Dobecki and Upchurch (2006) highlight the following conditions as required for

the characterization of a subsidence event according to the Florida Statute:

16

- There must be a void in the limestone that is capable of being filled with

sediments.

- There must be evidence of material raveling downward into an existing void.

- There must be damage consistent with sinkhole activity or a surface depression,

and/or evidence that a depression is forming.

The authors noted also that for geotechnical engineers, the second condition is most

important and are charged with the responsibility of demonstrating that the subsidence

feature noticed at the surface is an active sinkhole by demonstrating the raveling of

surface sediments into the underground cavities. This objective can be achieved by using

the appropriate geophysical methods.

2.6.3. Boring. The drilling of borings has been the most commonly used method

for sinkhole investigation. Geotechnical engineers try to drill holes above subsidence

features during sinkhole investigations. The use of borings for sinkhole involves the

actual removal of earthen material during a drilling operation. Based on the variation in

rate of penetration of the drilling tools and the nature of the materials recovered,

inference can be made on the condition of the subsurface at that location. This approach

to sinkhole investigation is not quite efficient because it does require the drilling of

multiple borings in order to characterize a site. And the discovery of a void does not

always confirm the existence of a sinkhole because for the feature to be a sinkhole, it

must demonstrate the raveling of surface sediments into the underground cavity which

cannot be absolutely determined using borings. Apart from being the most expensive of

sinkhole investigation methods, it is also incapable of providing the lateral and vertical

extent of the sinkhole. More so, it is also risky to set up a drill rig over a subsidence

17

feature because it could collapse into the underground cavity being studied in a sinkhole

investigation program. Dobecki and Upchurch (2006) recalled an instance, during a

sinkhole investigation project where a drill rig collapsed into a cavity. This was because

the overburden covering the cavity was quite thin that it could not support the weight of

the rig and then collapsed into it.

The focus of this research is to describe an efficient combination of these different

techniques in sinkhole investigations using two case study sites in Greene County,

Missouri:

- Aerial photographs, maps and geologic cross-section made from well logs are

used to gain knowledge on the general geology of the area under study and

ascertain its susceptibility to sinkhole formation.

- Geophysical studies are carried out at the sites using the Electrical Resistivity

Tomography (ERT) and Multichannel Analysis of Surface waves (MASW) tools.

The results of this study are used to provide a better description of the

underground geology.

- Boring information is used as ground truth to constrain the geophysical

interpretations and for the general site sinkhole characterization.

18

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In the preceding section, the utility of different techniques (aerial photographs,

geologic maps, geophysical studies and borings) to sinkhole investigations were

discussed. It will be recalled that it was recommended that the tools be combined

appropriately to improve the quality of sinkhole investigations.

This section is subdivided into two parts: the first part deals with short descriptions of the

approach considered as effective in sinkhole investigations while the second part deals

with the application of the approach in the investigation of sinkholes at the two case

study sites in Greene County, Missouri.

3.1. PRELIMINARY STUDIES

Preliminary site investigation is an important part of sinkhole investigations. It

provides a general view of an area as to its susceptibility to sinkhole development. The

results of preliminary investigation present a framework for a decision on further field

investigation at the site or not. As stated in the preceding session, these studies can be

done in a short time and at little to know costs. Most of the information needed for

preliminary site investigations is available to the public. The resources include the aerial

photographs, topographic maps, geologic cross-sections from well logs, LiDAR images

(if available), geologic maps and other related publications. For this research, the

preliminary site investigations were done using aerial photographs, topographic maps,

geologic cross sections, and sinkhole susceptibility and fault maps.

19

For each of the sites visited, studies of the aerial photographs were done for the

range of aerial photographs that are available both from the Missouri DNR and from

Google Earth. Aerial photographs between 1996 and 2013 were obtained from Google

Earth whereas older ones were obtained from the DNR office. The objective was to

observe if there are visible depressions on the ground surface around the site.

Also, topographic maps downloaded from the United States Geological Survey

(USGS) were overlaid on the Google Earth maps for the two sites. The intent was to

observe if there are depressions mapped around the site on the topographic maps.

Sinkhole prone areas are often associated with multiple depressions as seen on

topographic maps. This is also another source of having background information on the

susceptibility a site to sinkhole development.

Geologic cross-sections were constructed for each of the two sites using well log

data obtained from the database of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources. The

intent is to observe the individual geologic layers and their thickness in the study area and

to check if the geological units underlying the overburden is considered as susceptible to

karst formation and hence sinkhole development.

In addition, a karst susceptibility/sinkhole features/fault map was generated for

the study sites from the database of the Centre for Applied Research and Environmental

Systems (CARES). The maps show the susceptibility of an area to karst development.

They also show the location and orientation of mapped faults in the area. This is

necessary because faults and joints orientations in karst prone areas suggest areas where

sinkholes are likely to form (Muchaidze, 2008 and Gouzie et al., 2009). The CARES map

also contains a map of sinkhole features mapped by different agencies at different time

20

periods. This information presents a general view of a site as to its susceptibility to

sinkhole development as well as provides a framework for deciding the nature of the field

investigations to be carried out in a site.

The next two sections present the application of the preliminary investigations of

the two case study sinkhole sites.

3.2. GEOPHYSICAL METHODS

As stated in Session 2, most authors recognize the utility of different

commercially available geophysical tools in sinkhole investigations. However, only two

of them are used in this research. This is because of their applicability in the study areas.

These geophysical tools are the Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT), and the

Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW).

3.2.1. The Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT). This method measures the

spatial variation in the resistivity of soil and rock below the surface. The principle behind

this technology is that rock/soil materials demonstrate variations in their electrical

resistivity because of the variations in their mineral content, fluid saturation, porosity,

permeability and so on. Hence, by measuring the resistivity of the subsurface in good

resolution, areas of the subsurface undergoing dissolution can be differentiated from the

intact rock.

3.2.1.1. 2D ERT data acquisition. A typical ERT data acquisition unit, the

Supersting system is shown in Figure 3.1. It is an automated unit that measures the

apparent resistivity of the subsurface as shown in the Figure 3.1b. Data acquisition using

the Supersting unit involves passing electric currents through the electrodes that are

21

coupled to the ground using metal stakes. Each pair of electrodes serves as current

electrodes while another set of two electrodes, serves as the voltage electrodes. The

geometric setup of the electrodes depends on the standard arrays applied in each study.

The common standard electrode arrays available are Wenner, Schlumberger,

Dipole-dipole and Pole-dipole arrays. Coskun (2012) recommends the use of the Dipole-

dipole array which is more commonly used today because of the better lateral and vertical

resolutions it offers than the other arrays. Loke (1991) shares similar view as Coskun by

adding that the Dipole-dipole array is more suitable in investigating karst terrain because

of its ability to detect sharp changes in bedrock topographies.

The electrodes used in ERT site investigations are typically spaced at 5 feet

intervals. However, this can vary depending on the preference between resolution and

imaged depth. Typically, increasing the electrode spacing will increase the imaged depth

and reduce the resolution of the section and vice versa. However, it is often

recommended that if the desire is to increase the imaged depth, more electrodes should be

added to the section rather than increasing the electrode spacing.

22

Figure 3.1. The setup of an ERT system. (a) The ERT Supersting unit for data

acquisition, (b) The dipole-dipole array configuration. Images from the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (2003)

3.2.1.2. ERT data processing. After ERT data has been acquired, the data is

downloaded from the Supersting unit for processing. A software program, Res2DInv is

used to transform the apparent resistivity values measured from the field to true

resistivity by applying backward and forward modeling, a process called inversion.

The stages involved in the process include:

- Inspection of the data point for bad points (data points having too high/low

apparent resistivity values) and subsequently removing them when necessary.

- Running an inversion of the data involving some iterative calculations and then

generating a 2D resistivity image of the subsurface representing the true

resistivity of the sections. The result is a 2D resistivity image of the subsurface

23

showing the distribution of resistivity across a traverse. A typical 2D ERT cross-

section is shown in Figure 3.2.

During the processing of the data, it is important that the root mean square (RMS)

error remain as low as possible. According to Loke (1999), an RMS error of 5% is

recommended for a good quality geologic model.

Figure 3.2. A typical ERT cross-section.

3.2.1.3. ERT data interpretation. Current flow through the material between

electrodes in ERT survey is by electrolytic processes and thus when the joints and pores

are saturated with water, the soil/rock will conduct more electric current hence producing

lower resistivity values. Similarly, clay-filled zones are associated with very low velocity

because of its high conductivity properties. On the other hand, air-filled voids have

infinite resistivity value. These general concepts are important in the interpretation of the

ERT processed data.

According to Muchaidze, (2008) the interpretation of the ERT data is done using

the typical resistivity values of four (4) common subsurface materials conditions, moist

24

clay, moist soils and highly fractured rocks, relatively intact limestone and air-filled

cavities.

The typical values of these materials are described in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1. Typical resistivity values for different subsurface materials.

3.2.1.4. Strengths and weaknesses of the ERT method. The ERT is a great tool

for sinkhole investigation because it offers a high lateral and vertical resolution required

for describing a karst environment. It is also relatively inexpensive compared to boring. It

is a non-destructive technique and data can be acquired relatively faster: it would take a

three man crew about 2hrs to acquire data along a 400 feet traverse and an additional 1hr

to process the data. The equipment can image the subsurface up to the depth of 100 feet,

depending on the number of electrodes spacing and the profile length used.

Subsurface Material Description Resistivity (Ohm.m)

Moist Clays

Very low resistivity and varies

based on its degree of saturation,

porosity and layer thickness

< 100

Moist soils and intensely

fractured rocks

Moderate resistivity and could

vary based on its degree of

saturation, porosity and layer

thickness

100 - 400

Relatively Intact rock

Slightly higher resistivity and could

vary based on its degree of

saturation, porosity and layer

thickness

> 400

Air-filled cavities

Very high resistivity and could

vary depending on the

conductivity of the surrounding

strata and the depth/size/shape of

void.

Usually >10,000

25

On the other hand, it is difficult to acquire data on paved sections and where the

ground is so hard and difficult for the metal stakes to be driven into it. The equipment

works best when the ground is considerably moist which allows current to flow into the

ground. The processing and interpretation of an ERT can at times be fuzzy for instance,

an air-filled void can be misinterpreted as dense rock if the air filled void is surrounded

by moist sand or clay. Hence, it is often common to use boring data (ground truth) do

constrain the interpretation of the ERT data.

3.2.2. The Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW) Method. The

shear wave velocity of earthen materials can be used to determine their engineering

properties. Unfortunately, it is difficult to directly determine shear wave velocity from

seismic records. The surface waves dominates about 60% of waves produced from the

propagation of acoustic waves and can be used to indirectly determine the shear wave

velocities of materials to the nearest +/- 15% through a process called inversion which

transforms surface wave velocities to shear wave velocities. The phase velocity of

Raleigh waves (an example of surface wave also known as ground roll) is said to be

about 92% of the shear wave velocity.

3.2.2.1. MASW data acquisition and processing. The MASW measures the

amplitude and arrival time of Raleigh waves when the ground is struck with a sledge

hammer. A 24 channel geophone array spaced at typically 1.5 to 5 feet and connected to a

seismograph is used to record the seismic data as shown in Figure 3.3.

26

Figure 3.3. The acquisition and processing of MASW data.

From the field records, an overtone image is generated showing the phase velocity

at which different frequencies propagate into the ground. From the overtone image, a

dispersion curve is picked from the fundamental mode section of the data. From the

selected dispersion curve, 1-D shear wave velocity profile of the subsurface is calculated

using a process called inversion. The software program used for the processing of the

MASW data is called Surfseis3. When multiple sets of data are acquired along a parallel

traverses, the data can be combined to generate a 2-D shear-wave velocity profile of the

subsurface as shown in Figure 3.4 below.

27

Figure 3.4. The combination of multiple 1-D MASW profiles to generate a 2D shear

wave velocity profile. Kansas Geological Survey.

28

3.2.2.2. MASW data interpretation. The knowledge of the distribution of S-

wave velocities in a material is important as it translates to the elastic properties of the

material. For instance, an earthen material like soil has lower S-wave velocities than

competent bedrock. In sinkhole study, this analogy follows because the dissolved

bedrock containing voids or filled with raveled surficial materials are expected to have

low S-wave velocity compared to the surrounding competent bedrock.

The NEHRP (National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program) site classification

chart for different geological material as published in 2000 by the International Building

code is shown in Table 3.2. The table provides a basis for the classification of subsurface

materials based on their shear wave velocity values.

For practical purposes, 1000-1200 feet/sec is typically interpreted as the shear

wave velocity corresponding to the top of limestone bedrock.

Table 3.2. NEHRP site classification chart for different geological materials.

29

3.2.2.3. Strengths and weaknesses of the MASW method. Data acquisition

using the MASW is relatively fast and simple. A two (2) man crew is usually sufficient.

A profile of MASW can be taken within just 20 minutes with an average processing time

of about 10 minutes when the data is of good quality. Also, the equipment is non-

destructive and can be used over paved sections. It works well even in acoustically noisy

area. In most cases, where boring data are not available, the MASW can be used to

establish boring control for other geophysical equipment.

The downside to the use of the MASW is that it is not suitable for areas where the

depth to bedrock is highly variable. Also, fractures, and voids tend to obstruct the transfer

of surface waves and as such affecting the quality of the recorded surface wave signal.

For, better resolution, shorter geophone spacing is recommended.

3.3. BORINGS

As mentioned previously, drilling data is very important in sinkhole studies

because it serves as ground truth for constraining geophysical data interpretations. Details

of a boring program including recovered drill cuttings, records of penetration rate and

drilling fluid loss can suggest what the subsurface conditions are at the boring location.

However, it is not economically viable and efficient to drill too many borings at a site for

sinkhole characterization. Hence, a few borings should be efficiently planned for and

drilled to improve the overall effectiveness of the sinkhole investigation.

30

3.4. STUDY AREA

In this part of section three, a brief description of the geology of Greene County is

made, highlighting the geologic structures in the area that makes it susceptible to the

formation of sinkholes. Fellows, (1970) writes on the geology of Greene County stating

that the Burlington-Keokuk formation which has a thickness of between 150 and 270 ft.

outcrops at the surface in most areas of the county. The formation underlies thin

sediments in most places in the county and is predominantly limestone with high porosity

and susceptible to dissolution. Figure 3.5 below shows the geologic column of Greene

County. The Watershed Committee of the Ozarks writes of a recent study by the

Southwest Missouri State University which indicates that about 2500 sinkholes of various

sizes have been verified in Greene County alone. This report emphasizes the need for

applying efficient means for investigating sinkholes and stabilizing them before they

become hazards.

According to Muchaidze (2008) and Gouzie et al. (2009), the majority of

sinkholes mapped in southern Missouri developed along fractures, joints and fault planes.

These joints are said to have developed during the uplift of the Ozarks. Ground water

preferentially flows along these discontinuities; forming voids and later subsides or

collapses to form sinkholes. The study of sinkholes must include the identification of the

orientation of the faults, joints and fractures along the site because they provide clues to

the processes that led to the development of the sinkholes.

31

Figure 3.5. A geologic column of Green County. Fellows (1970)

32

The geologic structures in Greene County are highly jointed with orientations

trending NNW and ENE and nearly orthogonal to each other. Coots, (2007) writes of

three main fault types that are common in the area namely; The Pearson Creek fault,

Kinser Bridge fault and the Danfort Graben fault. They all have Northwest-Southeast

trend with normal displacement. The fault map of Greene County showing the three main

fault systems is shown in Figure 3.6. The Pearson Creek fault has a strike direction of

N55W and normal displacement of between 10 and 20ft; the Kinser Bridge fault trends

West-Northwest with a normal displacement of about 50ft; the Danfort Graben fault has a

vertical displacement of about 70ft and trends northwestward.

Figure 3.6. The fault systems and lineaments in Greene County, Missouri. Coots (2007)

33

Two sites were studied to demonstrate the efficiency of the combined approach to

sinkhole investigation. Figure 3.7 shows the approximate location of the two sites in

Greene County, Mo. The details of the studies in both sites are described in the next two

sections.

Figure 3.7. The locations of the two sites in Greene County, Missouri. Google Earth

34

4. CASE STUDY SITE 1

In this section, case study Site 1 is discussed in details. The sinkhole investigation

methods discussed in section three are applied in the site and the results are also

presented.

4.1. OVERVIEW OF CASE STUDY SITE 1

A map view of Site1 is shown in Figure 4.1 below. A new road project is planned

by the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) to pass through the site from the

south-east to the north-west corner. But, there is concern about the recent development of

sinkhole around the area. The sinkhole had led to the subsidence of a portion of a parking

lot adjacent to it as can been seen on Figure 4.1. Hence, the goal of the investigation was

to characterize the sinkhole such that appropriate plans could be made regarding the

proposed project and ensuring the safety of the people living around the site.

In this site, preliminary site study was done followed by geophysical studies using

the ERT and the MASW tools. Finally, a few borings were drilled at selected locations at

the site. The results are later analyzed and interpreted in the characterization of the

sinkhole.

35

Figure 4.1. A map view of Site 1 in Nixa, Missouri, with the area of interest magnified at

lower right.

4.2. PRELIMINARY SITE INVESTIGATIONS

In the preliminary study stage of Site 1 sinkhole investigations, the topographic

maps, aerial photographs, geologic cross-section and karst susceptibility/sinkhole/fault

maps from the CARES are studied. The intent is to understand the susceptibility of the

site to sinkhole development based on available resources.

4.2.1. Topographic Map for Site 1. A digital copy of the USGS topographic map

describing the site was overlaid on Google Earth. This was done to observe if there are

mapped depressions on the site. It is expected that sinkhole prone areas would show up

on the map as having multiple mapped depressions.

The topographic map of the site shown in Figure 4.2 indicates only a few

depressions. The depressions are seen in the south-eastern part of the site. It can be

36

suggested from this map that the site is not highly susceptible to sinkhole risks since there

are only a few mapped depressions around the site.

Figure 4.2. The topographic map of Site 1.

4.2.2. Aerial Photographs. Aerial photographs of the site between 1996 and

2013 were obtained from Google Earth, and older ones from Missouri Department of

Natural Resources (DNR). The site was observed for changes on the ground surface

around the site between 1970 and 2013. Features of interest included depressions on and

around the site as well as the appearance and disappearance of water bodies. These

features are sometimes associated with sinkhole activities.

The aerial photos obtained from the site are shown in Figure 4.3. It can be seen

from the aerial photos that the site had undergone a lot of changes over the 43 year span.

37

It will be noticed that in 1970, the site was covered with trees. In 1996, the trees in the

site had been cut down and buildings had been erected on it. Also, a drainage and water

retention pit was dug to keep the buildings away from flooding. As of 2011, the

concentration of water at the north-western corner of the site where the pit was dug had

led to the seepage of water into the ground. And two years later, a sinkhole developed at

the site.

This is a typical scenario where sinkhole had been triggered by anthropogenic

activities. The aerial photos had been able to suggest the geological processes that had

taken place leading to the development of the sinkhole at the site. The geophysical tools

however would be needed to determine the underground extend of the sinkhole and other

geological features.

4.2.3. Karst Susceptibility/Sinkholes/Faults map for Site 1. A map was

generated from the database of the Centre for Applied Research and Environmental

Systems (CARES). The map contains information on the site related to mapped sinkhole

features, karst susceptibility and mapped faults. The importance of this map to the study

is to assess the presence of some of the factors that promote the development of sinkholes

in the site. These factors include mapped faults, mapped sinkhole features and karst

susceptibility. The map is shown in Figure 4.4.

38

Figure 4.3. A collection of aerial photographs for Site 1.

39

Figure 4.4. Karst susceptible areas, sinkhole features and faults for Site 1.

It can be seen from Figure 4.4 that Site 1 is surrounded by areas mapped as highly

susceptible to karst development and that sinkholes have consistently developed in the

karst prone region. The position of Site 1 relative to the sinkhole prone areas indicates

that there is a fairly high chance of sinkhole development in the site.

4.2.4. Geologic Cross-Sections for Site 1. Well log data obtained from the well

log database of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) were used to

construct geologic cross-sections across site 1. The intent was to determine the type of

geologic formations underlying the site and if they are prone to karst formation.

The approximate location of the four wells used in generating the cross-section is

shown in Figure 4.5. The resultant geologic cross-section was generated using a

commercially available software package, Strater (from Golden Software, Inc.) and is

shown in Figure 4.6.

40

Figure 4.5. The relative locations of the four wells used for generating Site 1 geologic

cross-section.

Figure 4.6. The geologic cross-section of Site 1.

The cross-section in Figure 4.6 shows that the bedrock dips slightly from west to

east for all the lithological units plotted. Also, the thickness of the Burlington-Keokuk

41

formation at the site was between 100 and 140 feet which are consistent with published

literature on the thickness of the Burlington-Keokuk formation in Greene County. This

data is critical because it confirms the presence of the Burlington-Keokuk formation at

the site which is considered as highly susceptible to dissolution and responsible for most

of the sinkholes, caves and springs found in the county.

4.3. GEOPHYSICAL STUDIES AT SITE 1

On the 6th

of March, 2013 geophysical studies were carried out at the site using

the Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) and the Multichannel Analysis of Surface

Waves (MASW) tools. Some site photographs from the site are shown in Figures 4.7 and

4.8. The details of the field studies are described below.

Figure 4.7. Some Site 1 photographs. (a) The limestone bedrock is seen overlain by

reddish brown clayey sediments; (b) The sinkhole is seen encroaching into the adjacent

parking lot.

42

Figure 4.8. Geophysical and Boring data acquisition.(a) The acquisition of ERT and

MASW data and (b) Retrieval of boring samples from the drilling auger.

4.3.1 The Electrical Resistivity Tomography Survey. Three traverses of ERT

data were acquired using the Super Sting system. The locations of the three ERT

traverses are shown in Figure 4.9. Seventy-two electrodes were used in the study. ERT

traverse 1 was spaced at 5 feet intervals; covering a length of 355ft and expected to image

up to the depth of 70ft, while the last 2 traverses were spaced at 4 feet covering a length

of 284 feet. The differences in electrode spacing were based on the availability of space

at the site. The profiles run from North to South in traverses 1 and 3 but traverse 2 runs

from the Northwest to the Southeast.

The processing steps discussed in section 3 were applied to the acquired data to

generate the 2-D resistivity profiles shown in Figures 4.10, 4.11 and 4.12.

43

Figure 4.9. The approximate locations of the ERT and MASW traverses on Site 1.

It can be recalled from Section 3 that the resistivity of rock is about 400 ohm-

meters, which was the basis for picking the top of the yellow color on the cross-sections

to represent the top of bedrock. Hence, from the 2D ERT cross-sections, it can be seen

that the bedrock is quite shallow (between 10 and 15ft deep on the average). Also, the

three ERT profiles suggest that a fault runs along the site. The fault trends Northwest

with a vertical displacement of about 10ft and is likely from the Pearson Creek fault

system. Also, there seem to be some dissolution-widened joints running northeast and

intersecting the fault.

44

By comparing ERT 3 with ERT 2, it can be observed that the sinkhole has formed

just at the intersection of the fault and the joints. This is an important finding because

there has not been any previous documentation of faults around the area.

4.3.2. The Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves Survey. Eleven sections of

MASW data were acquired at the site also on the same day. The first 7 sets were

acquired at 50ft station interval parallel to the ERT 1 section. The last four sets were

taken at strategic locations around the site. The primary aim was to combine the

processed first seven parallel traverses to generate a 2D shear wave velocity image of

the subsurface at the site. Twenty-four geophones of 4.5Hz frequency were used in the

study and were spaced at 2.5ft intervals. A shot-offset distance of 15 feet was used. A

20lb. sledge hammer was used as an acoustic source. Five stacks of MASW data were

recorded for each location.

The data were downloaded and processed using Surfseis3 software developed by

the Kansas Geophysical Survey (KGS). The processing of the data was done as described

in section three. Recall that the typical shear wave velocity for limestone bedrock is about

1000-1200ft/sec. During the processing of the data, it was observed that the 7th MASW

profiles acquired between 300 and 350ft along ERT 1 traverse was noisy and could not

be processed, and hence was not used in generating the 2D MASW profile. The first six

traverses were the ones used to map the top of bedrock. The individual 1-D shear wave

velocity profile of the six MASW traverses are shown in Figure 4.13 while the 2-D cross-

section obtained from their combination is given in Figure 4.14. The other 4 MASW

sections acquired at strategic locations on the site were also noisy. The noisy nature of the

Figure 4.10. The interpretation of the results of ERT 1.

Figure 4.11. The interpretation of the results of ERT 3.

Figure 4.12. The interpretation of the results of ERT 2.

48

data is thought to be as a result of the highly fractured nature of the shallow bedrock in

the site, which inhibits the transmission of surface waves.

The results of the 2D MASW cross-section generated from the 6 parallel traverses

are quite consistent with those of ERT 1 in delineating the top of bedrock and potentially

weak bedrock areas. It can be seen that the top of bedrock was mapped to be at about 10-

15ft depth just like the ERT profiles suggested. Also, it can be noticed that at the

beginning (between 25 and 50 ft.) and in the middle (between 150 and 220 ft.) of the 2-D

MASW cross-section, the bedrock appeared to be weaker. This is interpreted to be as a

result of dissolution-widened joints running almost orthogonal to the mapped fault. In

addition, the postulated fault seen towards the end of ERT 1 profile was not present in the

MASW profile because the 7th

MASW traverse acquired between 300 and 355 feet of

ERT 1 was noisy and could not be processed and hence missing in the 2D cross section.

Figure 4.13. The 1-D shear wave velocity profiles of the first 6 MASW profiles.

Figure 4.14. The interpretation of the 2-D shear wave velocity profile generated for Site 1.

51

4.4. BORINGS

Three borings were drilled at the site on the same day while geophysical data

acquisitions were going on. They are labeled BC 1, BC 2 and BC 3 as shown in Figure

4.9. A 3-inch diameter auger pipe was used for the borings. The intent was to obtain

ground truth to constrain the geophysical data interpretation. The results of the borings

are presented in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1. The boring log for Site 1.

From the overall review of the boring log shown in Table 4.1, it can be seen that

the boring control correlates well with the geophysical data in determining that the depth

of bedrock rock at the site is between 10 and 15ft.

52

4.5. RESULT SUMMARY FOR SITE 1

Based on the results of the sinkhole studies carried out at Site 1, the following

summary can be made relative to the level of information provided by the various

investigation methods used.

On the basis of the preliminary investigations, there was fairly good indication of

the susceptibility of the site to sinkhole activities:

The topographic map showed a few subsided areas reasonable off the site which

is indicative of little to no subsidence events in the past around the site.

A review of aerial photographs suggests that the excavation of the drainage and

water retention pit around the site may have increased the concentration of surface

water in an area that is faulted and highly prone to dissolution and hence triggered

the development of the sinkhole.

The geologic cross-section of the site confirmed the presence of the Burlington-

Keokuk formation at the site which is described as highly soluble and is

responsible most of the sinkhole related events in the county.

The sinkhole map showed that the site is slightly off the sinkhole prone areas. The

preliminary studies provided a strong basis for the other field investigations

performed at the site.

The geophysical studies at the site comprising ERT and MASW provided a good

description of the lateral and vertical extent of the sinkhole. The areas where the bedrock

was affected by the dissolution process prior to the formation of the sinkhole showed up

as low resistivity zones around high resistivity bedrock on the ERT and as low velocity

zones around high velocity bedrock on the MASW. Also, the three ERT profiles suggest

53

that a normal fault of between 10 and 15 feet vertical displacement trending northwest

runs across the site and the sinkhole had just opened at the intersection of the fault plane

and northwest trending joints at the site. The subsurface geology of the site is

summarized in Figure 4.15.

Figure 4.15. The interpretation of geological features at Site 1 showing the relative

positions of the fault and joints from which the sinkhole formed.

Boring data obtained from the site was consistent with the ERT data in the

correlation of ERT data interpretation of the subsurface geology. The borings confirmed

54

that the bedrock was really shallow (between 10 and 15 feet) and the dissolved bedrock

was replaced by clayey sediments as seen from the recovered formation samples.

This study demonstrates the utility of the application of the various techniques in

the characterization of sinkhole which provides a lot of confidence in result of the study.

55

5. CASE STUDY SITE 2

In this section, case study Site 2 is discussed in details. The sinkhole investigation

methods discussed in section 3 were also applied in this site and the results are presented.

5.1. OVERVIEW OF CASE STUDY SITE 2

This site is located at the northwestern part of Springfield, Missouri. A sinkhole

had just started to develop in between the two road sections along Hwy 160. The map

view of the site is shown in Figure 5.1. Reconnaissance study at the site showed that there

was previous knowledge of sinkhole activities around the area in the past. Hence,

remedial work was done at the site involving the construction of drainage system to keep

surface water away from bedrock just below the road sections; keeping the road stable.

However, it appeared that the drainage system has recently failed reactivating the

dissolution of the bedrock leading to the development of the sinkhole. It is feared that the

integrity of the road has been compromised by the ongoing bedrock dissolution and as

such the road constitutes risk to road users. The objective of the site investigation was to

determine the extent of the sinkhole as well as to suggest what factors led to its

formation. The various methods discussed in this research for sinkhole investigations

were applied in the site and the results are presented.

56

Figure 5.1. A map view of Site 2 in Springfield, Missouri, with the area of interest

magnified at lower right.

5.2. PRELIMINARY SITE INVESTIGATIONS

As was done in Site 1, preliminary site investigations were carried out on the site.

These include sinkhole studies, the topographic maps, aerial photographs, geologic cross-

section and karst susceptibility/sinkhole/fault maps from the CARES.

5.2.1. Topographic Map for Site 2. The USGS Topographic Map of the site was

downloaded and overlain on Google earth. The site was observed for mapped depressions

on and around the site. A topographic map of the site is shown in Figure 5.2.

A critical look at the topo map of Site 2 would suggest that the site is surrounded

by a lot of subsidence features as shown in Figure 5.2. It also appears that the road was

57

constructed across an old subsidence feature and is no surprise that sinkholes have started

to form at the site.

Figure 5.2. Some surface depressions on the topographic map of Site 2.

5.2.2. Aerial Photographs. Old (between 1938 and 1970) aerial photographs of

the site were collected from the Missouri DNR while more recent ones (between 1996

and 2013) were obtained from Google Earth. The aerial photographs are compared as

shown in Figure 5.3.

It can be seen in Figure 5.3 that the road (Hwy160) was constructed across an old

sinkhole as evident on the topographic map and old aerial photographs taken between

1938 and 1970. Around this period, the road had not been constructed; the water pond

58

and surface depression were clearly seen on the aerial photos. But in 1996, after the road

had been constructed, the subsided area had been leveled and only the pond could be

seen. It can also be observed that the water pond has witness different conditions of

wetness and dryness at different time periods as seen from 1996 to 2013. This is quite

typical of a sinkhole-prone area.

5.2.3. Karst Susceptibility/Sinkholes/Faults Map for Site 2. The CARES

website was used to generate a map of sinkhole features, karst proneness and mapped

faults. The resultant map is shown in Figure 5.4 below.

Based on the information obtained from Figure 5.4 about Site 2, it can be deduced

that the site is located in area described as highly susceptible to karst development and

many sinkholes have developed and been mapped there in the past. This indicates the

high likelihood of sinkhole formation in the area.

5.2.4. Geologic Cross-Sections for Site 2. Well logs obtained from the database

of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) online were used to generate a

geological cross-section across the site. The approximate locations of the well logs used

in drawing the cross-sections are shown in Figure 5.5. The resulting cross-section

generated from the two wells is shown in Figure 5.6.

59

Figure 5.3. The aerial photographs of Site 2 from 1938 to 2013.

It can be drawn from Figure 5.6 that the Burlington-Keokuk formation also

underlies the thin sediments at this site as was the case in the first site.

60

Figure 5.4. Karst susceptible areas, sinkhole features and faults for Site 2.

Figure 5.5. The approximate locations of the two wells used to generate Site 2 cross-

sections.

61

Figure 5.6. The geologic cross-section of Site 2.

5.3. GEOPHYSICAL STUDIES AT SITE 2

On the 29th

of April, 2013, ERT and MASW surveys were carried out on the site

towards characterizing the subsurface conditions at the site. Some site photos obtained

from the site is shown in Figure 5.7.

Figure 5.7. Some site photographs of Site 2. (a) the areas affected by sinkholes; (b) the

location of the failed drainage pipes beneath the road.

62

5.3.1 The Electrical Resistivity Tomography Survey. Four parallel sections of

the ERT data were acquired at the site on the 29th

of April, 2013. Each of the four profiles

started from the North-west to the South-East corner. A total of 96 electrodes were used

in the surveys and were spaced at 5ft intervals. This setup allowed for a total profile

length of 475ft and imaged depth of about 120 ft. The approximate location of the ERT

profiles at the site is shown in Figure 5.8 below.

The ERT data was processed and interpreted using the steps discussed in the

preceding sections. The results are shown in Figures 5.9 and 5.10.

Figure 5.8. The approximate location of the ERT and MASW traverses in Site 2.

Figure 5.9. The interpretation of the results of ERT 1 and 2.

Figure 5.10. The interpretation of the results of ERT 3 and 4.

65

5.3.2 The Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves Survey for Site 2. MASW

data was acquired at the site on the same day along the ERT 3 profile as shown in Figure

5.8 above. A total of 7 parallel profiles were acquired along ERT 3. Each profile was

57.5ft long with 24 geophones (4.5Hz) spaced at 2.5ft interval. The intent was to use the

records to generate a 2D shear wave velocity profile of the subsurface in the site. The

total data acquisition took a three-man crew about two hours to complete.

The data acquired at the site were of very low quality. Surface wave energy could

not properly propagate into the ground. This made the processing of the data impossible.

Hence, the MASW data was not used in this particular site. The noisy nature of the data

is explained to be as a result of the unconsolidated in-fill materials such as gravel used in

the construction of the road section. These materials attenuate the energy of propagated

acoustic signals quickly thereby affecting the quality of the survey.

5.4. BORINGS

A few borings were drilled at strategic locations in the site using the drilling

augers. The intent was to use the boring data to constrain the geophysical data

interpretations. The results of the borings are presented in Table 5.1 below.

The borehole data obtained from the site proves to be consistent with the ERT

data interpretation. The boring locations were mainly around ERT profiles 1 and 2; and

they show that the bedrock was shallower around the NW section of the site and gets

deeper towards the SE section.

66

Table 5.1. The boring log data from Site 2.

67

5.5. RESULT SUMMARY FOR SITE 2

The summary of the preliminary studies, geophysical studies and borings

performed on Site 2 is summarized below.

The preliminary investigations showed strong evidence that the road was

constructed along an old sinkhole site that has just reactivated:

The topographic map in Figure 5.2 showed that the road (Hwy 160) was

constructed across an old sinkhole and was probably filled during the road

construction but now been reactivated.

The sinkhole and karst susceptibility map in Figure 5.4 shows that the site is

centrally located in an area described as highly prone to sinkhole formation.

The aerial photographs as seen in Figure 5.3, taken on the site in 1938, 1959 and

1970 prior to the construction of the road showed clearly that the road was

constructed along an old sinkhole.

As was the case in Site 1, the geologic cross-section of the site made from the 2

logs around the site showed that the Burlington-Keokuk formation also underlies

the thin layer of sediment at the site.

As for the geophysical studies carried out at the site, even though the MASW data

was noisy and was not useful in the interpretation of the subsurface geology, the ERT

data was very definitive in the description of the underground conditions at the site. From

ERT profiles 1 and 2, it can be seen clearly the sinkhole developed in an already subsided

area with bedrock depth deeper than the average. This observation is consistent with

boring data and topographic maps. On the other hand, ERT 3 and 4 showed no serious

signs of sinkhole formation despite the failure of the drainage pipes. However, it could be

68

seen on ERT 4 that the failure of the pipe had started affecting the adjacent rock: low

resistivity rock.

The boring data correlated very well with the ERT data. It showed that the

bedrock was shallow (about 15 feet) in the northwest part of the site but very deep (over

80 feet) in the southeast area. The studies generally indicate that the sinkhole at the site

was mainly from the reactivation of an old sinkhole.

69

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This section discusses some of the important conclusions that can be made from

the study conducted and some useful recommendations on how sinkhole investigations

can be effectively conducted by the combination of preliminary studies, geophysical

studies and geotechnical borings.

It could be recalled that the main objectives of this reseaarch are:

- To describe how different techniques can be successfully combined in effective

sinkhole investigations.

- To use this approach to characterize the two sinkholes sites used in the study.

6.1. GENERAL CONCLUSION ON THE STUDIES

The preliminary studies was helpful in providing background knowledge on each

of the sites studied. The knowlegde gained can be applied in the interpreation of the

factors that led to the development of the sinkholes in the sites. For instance, based on the

information gathered from the areial photographs and topographic maps in Site 1, it was

possible to attribute the excavation of the drainage and water retention pit in a faulted

area was what triggered the sinkhole in the site. Similarly, it was through the same

process and reasonning that it was concluded that the sinkhole in Site 2 was a reactivation

of an old sinkhole in the site. Without this, it would have been difficult to reasonably

account for the sharp difference in bedrock seen in site from both the ERT and the

borings.

70

The geophysical methods proved to be very useful in the entire sinkhole

investigation, providing a clearer picture of the lateral and vertical changes in the

subsurface features. The ERT was very definitive in the two studies and its results

correlated very well with boring data. However, the interpretation of the geophysical data

was highly dependent on the background information of a site gathered from both the

prelimainary studies and borings. The success of the ERT tool explains why it is

recommended by most authors as the geophysical tool of choice in sinkhole

investigations. On the other hand, the MASW was not as successful as the ERT. But

when it worked, its results were very consistent with those of the ERT and the borings.

This also, explanis why the equipment is not as established as the ERT in sinkhole

investigations.

The few well borings drilled at the sites served as ground truth for the

interpretation of the geophysical data. It would have been inefficient and financially

unattractive to have drilled too many borings just to characterize the underground

geology at the respective sites.

This project highlights the dependability of the three main sinkhole investigation

techniques. Hence, by appropriately combining these techniques, sinkhole investigations

could be performed more efficiently.

6.2. RECOMMENDATIONS

Sinkhole investigation can be a challenging, time consuming and some times

complicated project. The study showed that the combination of preliminary investigations

(using topographic maps, aerial photographs, geologic cross-sections, sinkhole/fault/karst

71

maps), geophysical studies (using the ERT and the MASW tools) and selected borings is

an effective approach to sinkhole investigations. Hence, this approach is hereby

recommended for future sinkhole studies where applicable.

72

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alexander, S.C., Kazerooni, M.R., Larson, E., Bomberger, C., Greenwaldt, B., &

Alexander, E.C., Jr. “Combining Lidar, Aerial Photography, and Pictometry Tools

for Karst Features Database Management” 13th

Sinkhole Conference, 2 441-448.

2013.

Beck, B.F., & Sinclair, W.C. “Sinkholes in Florida: An introduction,” In Florida Bureau

of Geology Library. 1987.

Bullock, P.J., & Dillman, A. “Sinkhole detection in Florida Using GPR and CPT,”

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/statematerialsoffice/geotechnical/conference/materials/b

ullock-dillman.pdf. 2003.

Connor, J.M., McMillen, M.J., Greene, R.W., McWhorter, J.G., & Jagel, D.L. “Electrical

resistivity in northeastern U.S. Karst - a case history,” Sinkholes and the

Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst, 71-80. 2008.

Coots, T. “Greene County Comprehensive Plan: Greene County Planning and Zoning,”

http://www.greenecountymo.org/web/Public_Information/files/Comp.pdf, 2013.

Coskun, N. “The effectiveness of electrical resistivity imaging in sinkhole

investigations,” International Journal of Physical Sciences, 7(15), 2398 - 2405.

doi:10.5897/IJPS11.1063, 2012.

Dobecki, T.L., & Upchurch, S.B., “Geophysical applications to detect sinkholes and

ground subsidence,” The Leading Edge, 336-341. 2006.

Erwin, R.B., “West Virginia Geologic Handbook” West Virginia Department of

Environmental Protection.

http://www.dep.wv.gov/dmr/handbooks/documents/geology%20handbook/wv%2

0geology%20chapter%205.pdf. 1969, accessed Oct 2013.

Follow, L.D., “Geology of Galloway Quadrangle Greene County Missouri,” Missouri

Geological Survey and Water Resources. 1970.

Festa, V., Fiore, A., Parise, M., & Siniscalchi, A, “Sinkhole evolution in the Apilian

Karst of Southern Italy: a case study, with some considerations on Sinkhole

Hazards,” Journal of Cave and Karst Studies, 74(2), 137–147.

doi:10.4311/2011JCKS0211. 2012.

73

Florea, L.J., “Using State-wide GIS data to identify the coincidence between sinkholes

and geologic structure,” Journal of Cave and Karst Studies, 67(2), 120-124. 2005.

Gouzie, D., & Pendergrass, G., “Investigation and remediation of the 2006 Nixa,

Missouri, collapse sinkhole,” Environmental & Engineering Geosciences, 15(1),

13-27, 2009.

Kochanov, W.E., “Sinkholes in Pennsylvania,” In www.dcnr.state.pa.us/topogeo. 1999.

Loke, M.H., “Electrical imaging surveys for environmental and engineering studies,” in

http://www.abem.se/support/downloads/case-studies/practical-guide-to-2d-3d-

surveys. 1999.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources, in www.dnr.mo.gov. accessed December

2013.

Muchaidze, I., “Imaging Karst Terrain Using Electrical Resistivity Tomography.” In

https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/26344/Muchaidze_

2008.pdf?sequence=1. 2008.

Myat, M.T., Wamweya, A., Kovin, O., Anderson, N., & Robison, J.L, “Application of

Electrical Resistivity Method in Steeply Dipping Karst Terrain.” Sinkholes and

the Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst, 91-97, 2008.

Nettles, S., Jarrett, B., & Cross, E.C., “Application of surface geophysics for providing a

detailed geotechnical assessment of a large resort development site in Anguilla,

BWI,” Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst, 110-

119, 2008, accessed July 2013.

Panno, S.V., Larson, T.H., Pugin, A., Luman, D.E., Angel, J.C., & Carrillo, P.K.,

“Causes of house subsidence in an area adjacent to Illinois' sinkhole plain,”

Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst, 23-34. 2008.

Robison, J.L., & Anderson, N.L., “Geophysical investigation of the Delaware Avenue

sinkhole Nixa, Missouri.” Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental

Impacts of Karst, 62-70. 2008.

Rupert, F., & Spencer, S., “Florida Sinkholes.” Florida Geological Survey, Poster 11.

2004.

Strater (Version 4) Software. Golden Software, Inc. Retrieved from

www.goldensoftware.com. 2013

Wightman, M.J., & Zisman, E.D., “The selection and application of geophysical test

methods in West Central Florida Karst Regions” Sinkholes and the Engineering

and Environmental Impacts of Karst, 81-90. 2008.

74

Zisman, E. D., “A method of quantifying sinkhole risk” Sinkholes and the Engineering

and Environmental Impacts of Karst, 278-287. 2008.

Zisman, E.D., Wightman, M., & Kestner, J. “Sinkhole investigation methods: the next

step after special pubication no. 57, ” Carbonates Evaporites, (28), 103-109.

2013.

75

VITA

Stanley Chinedu Nwokebuihe hails from Umuada Avutu Obowo, Imo State,

Nigeria. He received his BEng. in Petroleum Engineering from the Federal University of

Technology, Owerri in Imo State, Nigeria. He successfully completed the National Youth

Service Scheme (NYSC) in June, 2011.

He subsequently gained admission to study Geological Engineering (M.S.) at

Missouri University of Science and Technology in Rolla, Missouri. During this time, he

worked in different geophysical projects involving the use of the Ground Penetrating

Radar, Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves, Electrical Resistivity Tomography and

Portable Seismic Pavement Analyzer tools. He also served as a Graduate Research

Assistant and Teaching Assistant at different times.

He is an active member of different professional organizations including the

Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG), and

the Association of Environmental and Engineering Geologists (AEG) and the Tau Beta Pi

(TBP) Association. He has presented and co-authored different conference papers.

Stanley graduated with his Masters’ in May, 2014.